The study focuses on commissive speech acts, a linguistic term for statements that commit a speaker to future action, such as promises or policy commitments. Researchers found that these statements appeared far more frequently when Prabowo was still a presidential candidate than when he was already serving as president.
Political Language as Action, Not Just Words
In political communication, speeches do more than inform; they perform actions. A promise builds expectation, a directive shapes behavior, and a commitment signals responsibility. Linguists describe this as the “performative” nature of language—words that function as deeds.
Widya and Teguh Setiawan selected Prabowo’s speeches because his transition from candidate to president provides a clear case of how political language adapts to new institutional roles. Their analysis suggests that rhetoric evolves alongside responsibility, reflecting shifting expectations from voters to governing institutions.
How the Study Was Conducted
The researchers used a qualitative approach, analyzing eight speeches drawn from official YouTube recordings. Four speeches were delivered during the election campaign, while four were given after Prabowo assumed the presidency.
Each speech was transcribed and examined to identify commissive statements—phrases indicating future commitments. The team then compared how often such statements appeared and how their function changed across the two political phases.
Key Findings: Promises Dominate Campaigns
The analysis identified 79 commissive statements in total:
- 53 statements during the campaign period
- 26 statements during the presidency
This difference shows that campaign speeches rely heavily on forward-looking promises designed to persuade voters and build optimism. Once in office, speeches shift toward reporting actions, outlining policy implementation, and reinforcing legal authority.
Campaign statements often included pledges to reduce poverty, fight corruption, and empower younger generations. After taking office, commitments were framed more as policy targets—such as economic regulation, environmental initiatives, or institutional reforms—rather than aspirational promises.
Power Relations Shape Communication Style
The study also highlights how social hierarchy affects political speech.
During the campaign, the relationship between speaker and audience is relatively equal. Candidates use inclusive language like “we” to signal solidarity and shared goals with voters.
Once in power, the relationship becomes hierarchical. Presidential speeches no longer simply invite support; they announce decisions, assert authority, and define national direction.
This shift demonstrates that rhetoric is not just about personality or style—it reflects the speaker’s position within political power structures.
Why the Findings Matter
For the public, the research helps clarify why campaign promises often sound different from governmental statements. They serve different communicative purposes: one builds electoral legitimacy, the other reinforces institutional authority.
For scholars, the study contributes to research on political discourse in Indonesia, showing how language mirrors shifts in leadership roles.
For policymakers and political strategists, it underscores the importance of consistent communication, as trust depends not only on policy outcomes but also on how commitments are expressed.
According to Widya of Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, the study shows that political speeches “reflect changing responsibilities rather than simply changing tone.”
.png)
0 Komentar